Personally, I don't like Mark Stokoe's Web site, either. It served its original purpose of exposing the great OCA financial scandal of years ago, which could explain why Archbishop Job liked it, but I think it's degenerated into a vigilante rumor mill since then.

I have removed some posts that are off topic. Again, if you wish to discuss homosexuality, homosexuality and the Church, and related matters, do so on other threads. In case you have not been to page 1 of this thread, please review Replies #27 and 43. Thanks, Second Chance

Question - how is it that a bishop can unilaterally remove someone from an elected position? Is there an appeals process?

Any person serving on Diocesan bodies, or as a representative of a diocese on a national body, must have the blessing of the ruling bishop. In this case, Bishop Matthias was certainly within his right to withdraw his blessing. I don't believe that there is an appeals process.

Question - how is it that a bishop can unilaterally remove someone from an elected position? Is there an appeals process?

Any person serving on Diocesan bodies, or as a representative of a diocese on a national body, must have the blessing of the ruling bishop. In this case, Bishop Matthias was certainly within his right to withdraw his blessing. I don't believe that there is an appeals process.

I am surprised that one bishop can have that much power (vesus the Holy Synod acting in consensus). Isn't Mark serving on the Metropolitan Council which represents the whole church?

I agree that Mr Stokoe's site has denigrated into a rumour mill promoting divisiveness and anger. I also agree with the bishop's actions.

I think the website should be shut down.

I respectfully disagree with the recommendation that OCA News should be shut down. OCA News has done more for the health of OCA than many folks who would rather not face problems in the light of day. I think that Stokoe was unfairly (at times viciously) attacked when his revelations (not rumors) embarrassed some important bishops, who happened to have been the primates of the OCA and the Antiochian Archdiocese. He did err in exploring the issue of homosexuality in the Church, particularly after having been accused of having that agenda drive his reporting about Metropolitan Jonah. I have also witnessed rigorous efforts on his part in trying to keep posters' comment within bounds of decency and propriety to the point of editing out allegations that he knew to be untrue. I would compare his record anytime to that of OCA Truth and Monomakhos. Bottom line: he is a flawed hero.

Question - how is it that a bishop can unilaterally remove someone from an elected position? Is there an appeals process?

Any person serving on Diocesan bodies, or as a representative of a diocese on a national body, must have the blessing of the ruling bishop. In this case, Bishop Matthias was certainly within his right to withdraw his blessing. I don't believe that there is an appeals process.

I am surprised that one bishop can have that much power (vesus the Holy Synod acting in consensus). Isn't Mark serving on the Metropolitan Council which represents the whole church?

He represented the Diocese of the Midwest on the Metropolitan Council.

Question - how is it that a bishop can unilaterally remove someone from an elected position? Is there an appeals process?

Any person serving on Diocesan bodies, or as a representative of a diocese on a national body, must have the blessing of the ruling bishop. In this case, Bishop Matthias was certainly within his right to withdraw his blessing. I don't believe that there is an appeals process.

I am surprised that one bishop can have that much power (vesus the Holy Synod acting in consensus). Isn't Mark serving on the Metropolitan Council which represents the whole church?

He represented the Diocese of the Midwest on the Metropolitan Council.

Thanks, but since he was serving on the metropolitan Council and not a DiEparchial Council, should the decision be made by the Holy Synod of Bishops?

Question - how is it that a bishop can unilaterally remove someone from an elected position? Is there an appeals process?

Any person serving on Diocesan bodies, or as a representative of a diocese on a national body, must have the blessing of the ruling bishop. In this case, Bishop Matthias was certainly within his right to withdraw his blessing. I don't believe that there is an appeals process.

I am surprised that one bishop can have that much power (vesus the Holy Synod acting in consensus). Isn't Mark serving on the Metropolitan Council which represents the whole church?

He represented the Diocese of the Midwest on the Metropolitan Council.

Thanks, but since he was serving on the metropolitan Council and not a DiEparchial Council, should the decision be made by the Holy Synod of Bishops?

Those states which allow a recall of congressmen do not need the permission of either the Senate or the House to oust their elected official. Since Stokoe needs the blessing of his bishop to sit on the Council, by removing it, His Grace is doing the recall himself.

I, for one, think it's a good step. Bishop Mathias is showing he's not going to be ignored or messed with and damn the torpedoes, so to speak.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Question - how is it that a bishop can unilaterally remove someone from an elected position? Is there an appeals process?

Any person serving on Diocesan bodies, or as a representative of a diocese on a national body, must have the blessing of the ruling bishop. In this case, Bishop Matthias was certainly within his right to withdraw his blessing. I don't believe that there is an appeals process.

I am surprised that one bishop can have that much power (vesus the Holy Synod acting in consensus). Isn't Mark serving on the Metropolitan Council which represents the whole church?

He represented the Diocese of the Midwest on the Metropolitan Council.

Thanks, but since he was serving on the metropolitan Council and not a DiEparchial Council, should the decision be made by the Holy Synod of Bishops?

You may be thinking of members elected by the AAC, not members elected by their respective dioceses. In any case, if the bishop didn't have the authority to remove him, I doubt he would have accepted it so graciously.

Question - how is it that a bishop can unilaterally remove someone from an elected position? Is there an appeals process?

Any person serving on Diocesan bodies, or as a representative of a diocese on a national body, must have the blessing of the ruling bishop. In this case, Bishop Matthias was certainly within his right to withdraw his blessing. I don't believe that there is an appeals process.

I am surprised that one bishop can have that much power (vesus the Holy Synod acting in consensus). Isn't Mark serving on the Metropolitan Council which represents the whole church?

In each of the American ecclesiastical structures that I'm familiar with (GOA, AOA, OCA), their top-level Clergy-Lay bodies (Archdiocesan Council, Metropolis Council) contain many types of representation: those directly appointed by the Primate, those representing certain interested parties (seminaries, philanthropic organizations), those who are in diocesan administration (hierarchs and chancellors), sometimes there are members who are elected (one way or another), and then there are those selected to represent the diocese. With each level, membership in the body can be rescinded by the authority which granted representation rights in the first place (and without the consent of the council itself): those appointed by the Primate can be removed by him, those appointed to represent diocese can be removed by their diocesan bishop, etc. It's a fairly standard procedure (which is why Schultz brings up the parallel situation of the recall of Senators and Representatives).

In some cases, diocesan reps to the higher council are elected, or selected, by a diocesan council or assembly; in those cases the hierarch usually retains veto rights - he can say "no" to a selection, but cannot unilaterally appoint someone to the position. That is what appears to have happened in this case: the hierarch has removed his blessing for Mark to serve on the council, and (as Mark indicates in his article on OCANews), there is an automatic procedure for determining who will fill the place (the 1st runner up in the election that selected Mark to begin with).

« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 05:28:27 PM by Fr. George »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I respectfully disagree with the recommendation that OCA News should be shut down.

Of course, the site cannot be forcibly shut down. Mark would have to shut it down himself. Did the site contribute to an effort to uncover improprieties during the financial scandal? Yes. Is there a purpose being served now with all the rumours and divisiveness? No.

His Grace is hopeful that Mr Stokoe "will come to the conclusion that this website is not a healthy venue for the Church and that he take down this site."

I respectfully disagree with the recommendation that OCA News should be shut down.

Of course, the site cannot be forcibly shut down. Mark would have to shut it down himself. Did the site contribute to an effort to uncover improprieties during the financial scandal? Yes. Is there a purpose being served now with all the rumours and divisiveness? No.

His Grace is hopeful that Mr Stokoe "will come to the conclusion that this website is not a healthy venue for the Church and that he take down this site."

I hope that Mr Stokoe is obedient.

It seems to me that your argument is similar to:

Did the fire department put down fires? Yes. Is there a purpose for its existence now that the fire is out? No.

Please note that I am not commenting on the current state of affairs. All I am saying that an independent news source is a good thing-- just in case. Just as a fire department; just in case.

Did the fire department put down fires? Yes. Is there a purpose for its existence now that the fire is out? No.

Fire departments are not swayed by rumours and bias.....so your analogy fails.

Your criticism fails. How do you know what goes on in every fire department? Ever hear of affirmative action? And the fallout that it caused in many fire departments across the States? Lowering physical standards for women and written test standards for "minorities".

You do realize if you are not in a tiny blip on the map, the fire department is enmeshed in city politics? Budgeting, quid pro quo union support for politicians in return for favors and the like?

You might want to consider what you are going to write before being so dismissive.

The problem with OCANews is that Mr. Stokoe was at once an 'insider' within the OCA's structure, yet running a news web site reporting from the 'outside.' It is tantamount to someone working for the White House while also being a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.

Those who wish to fulfill the role of reporter need to have some distance from what or who they report on. Having two roles is just undoable over the long haul.

This became a real problem when Mark decided to start 'reporting' on the topic of the Manhattan Declaration and homosexuality.

The danger with mark running OCANews by himself is that it ego boundaries tend to get a bit blurry. He has no one to check his work before it goes out, and people tend to perceive OCANews as an extension of Mark. I'm not sure that is all that inaccurate in either case. So, when the topic swung towards a matter having to do with a condition of Mark's personal life, he lost the ability to deal with the matter with even the appearance of impartiality and he opened himself up to inquiry as to how much he was 'guiding' the discussion on OCANews in favor of his own preferences.

Bishop Matthias had the canonical right remove Mark, and did so on substantive grounds: you can't sit in a room with Bishops and laity that you will then report on with a less-than-friendly light and expect confidential conversations to be kept confidential. We all know that meetings change once the tape recorder is turned on. Mark is a walking (and posting) transcription machine. That's why his site was effective, but it also becomes a liability when you are supposed to work together with the people you publicly criticize.

In this last case, the matter of homosexuality and gay marriage is a hot-button topic. Mark did not, in all fairness, treat the matter in a balanced way, but posted a number of extreme (by Orthodox standards!) essays without a counter-balanced approach. He also opened up a can of worms for the clergy who posted (for example, Fr. Vinogradov wrote something which was refuted by his own Bishop), which ran the risk of opening up another wound in the OCA.

If Mark is going to criticize the moral standards of the OCA, then he has pushed the boundaries of his own role as a 'trustee' of the OCA. He is expected to uphold and protect the morality of the Church, not to lobby for change. He was expected to represent the people of the Midwest in advising the Holy Synod rather than directing the latter's pastoral activity.

He went a step too far. Whereas before he was holding the bishops accountable for upholding morality, he started to get into the topic of changing morality. These are very different concepts.

I think everyone is grateful that Mark was instrumental in exposing the corruption of the Ancien Régime, but I think that being on the MC while trying to run OCANews is simply not workable. Furthermore, mark would do well to have other people involved to make sure that OCANews runs as a less-than-personal-crusade. One must always be careful in reporting on a topic tangential to one's personal life.

The problem with OCANews is that Mr. Stokoe was at once an 'insider' within the OCA's structure, yet running a news web site reporting from the 'outside.' It is tantamount to someone working for the White House while also being a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.

Bishop Matthias had the canonical right remove Mark, and did so on substantive grounds: you can't sit in a room with Bishops and laity that you will then report on with a less-than-friendly light and expect confidential conversations to be kept confidential. We all know that meetings change once the tape recorder is turned on. Mark is a walking (and posting) transcription machine. That's why his site was effective, but it also becomes a liability when you are supposed to work together with the people you publicly criticize.

Greek Orthodox American Leaders (GOAL) shut down the "Voithia" ("Help") web site in late 1999 and regretted it when new controversies arose, i.e. when the revised constitutional charter was being negotiated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, prior to it being "granted." OCANews exists and the powers that be know it, thus, serving as an internal control in and of itself. Critics now say it is passing around rumors, but when it documents them, the critics criticise the method with which the documentation was obtained. OCANews' reporting history demonstrates that it isn't a gossip and rumor mill; there is fire where it reports smoke. Many in the OCA suspect RSK still wields influence. Bishop Matthias wasn't a player when Central Church Administration was operating in the deviant mode RSK had established and so, may not fully appreciate how significant the contribution to the catharsis that it facilitated. He probably can't even fully appreciate the findings in the SIC Report, as a result; (which rational person could?) Mr. Stokoe still has respected collaborators who will keep him and us informed, as needed. And OCANews will not have the restraints that have existed the past 3+ years, due to Mr. Stokoe's position on the MC and Diocesan Council.

Keep OCANews up and running "for the good of the church," to quote former Metropolitan Herman, in quite another context.

The problem with OCANews is that Mr. Stokoe was at once an 'insider' within the OCA's structure, yet running a news web site reporting from the 'outside.' It is tantamount to someone working for the White House while also being a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.

Those who wish to fulfill the role of reporter need to have some distance from what or who they report on. Having two roles is just undoable over the long haul.

This became a real problem when Mark decided to start 'reporting' on the topic of the Manhattan Declaration and homosexuality.

The danger with mark running OCANews by himself is that it ego boundaries tend to get a bit blurry. He has no one to check his work before it goes out, and people tend to perceive OCANews as an extension of Mark. I'm not sure that is all that inaccurate in either case. So, when the topic swung towards a matter having to do with a condition of Mark's personal life, he lost the ability to deal with the matter with even the appearance of impartiality and he opened himself up to inquiry as to how much he was 'guiding' the discussion on OCANews in favor of his own preferences.

Bishop Matthias had the canonical right remove Mark, and did so on substantive grounds: you can't sit in a room with Bishops and laity that you will then report on with a less-than-friendly light and expect confidential conversations to be kept confidential. We all know that meetings change once the tape recorder is turned on. Mark is a walking (and posting) transcription machine. That's why his site was effective, but it also becomes a liability when you are supposed to work together with the people you publicly criticize.

In this last case, the matter of homosexuality and gay marriage is a hot-button topic. Mark did not, in all fairness, treat the matter in a balanced way, but posted a number of extreme (by Orthodox standards!) essays without a counter-balanced approach. He also opened up a can of worms for the clergy who posted (for example, Fr. Vinogradov wrote something which was refuted by his own Bishop), which ran the risk of opening up another wound in the OCA.

If Mark is going to criticize the moral standards of the OCA, then he has pushed the boundaries of his own role as a 'trustee' of the OCA. He is expected to uphold and protect the morality of the Church, not to lobby for change. He was expected to represent the people of the Midwest in advising the Holy Synod rather than directing the latter's pastoral activity.

He went a step too far. Whereas before he was holding the bishops accountable for upholding morality, he started to get into the topic of changing morality. These are very different concepts.

I think everyone is grateful that Mark was instrumental in exposing the corruption of the Ancien Régime, but I think that being on the MC while trying to run OCANews is simply not workable. Furthermore, mark would do well to have other people involved to make sure that OCANews runs as a less-than-personal-crusade. One must always be careful in reporting on a topic tangential to one's personal life.

I agree with you on both points. Indeed, I had urged Mark not to wear two hats at the same time: he could have chosen not to serve on the MC or to have other folks help him run OCA News if he did. Similarly, I do think that he was not as objective as he could have been once he himself became a major factor (both the email and personal life issues). He has been trying quite hard to report facts and not rumors; his main problem stemmed from the fact that as he was on the inside his reports were necessarily vague. I can understand why folks may have misinterpreted such vagueness as rumors.

I'd have to say that in the past year or two, I've become increasingly dissatisfied and frankly, disappointed in the reporting of OCANews. It just got to the point where I couldn't even read it anymore, it was simply damaging to the soul. This became especially true when OCATruth was founded, and the two started having their childish "your bishop smells", "well, you're a liar" fights...

As many have said here, this became a conflict of interests, as Mark should not have been serving in such an administrative role while at the same time running the website. This was not just for his own good, but I'm sure this helps our relations with other jurisdictions as well (especially the Antiochians).

This especially became a problem when Mark started representing viewpoints that contradicted Orthodox teachings. As mentioned before, because he was doing this, our Church had to become completely hands off, and bid him farewell (as far as his administrative role goes), because the Church cannot support someone who is publishing things that contradict our basic teachings and morals.

His website has just become a haven for the rumor mill and as mentioned many times, has incited more divisiveness in the Church. We have dealt with the old regime and removed the main problem. Sure, some of our hierarchy may still be the "old guard" and want to continue the status quo. Maybe that does need to be reported on, but it definitely should be someone who hasn't taken it upon themselves as a personal crusader and who has started representing un-Orthodox morals/viewpoints.

Sure, having the microphone off changes meetings. I think this is often a good thing. Look at the Assembly of Canonical Bishops, for the most part, they don't record their meetings. But as far as we know, they've been very cordial and brotherly. So just because the mics are off doesn't mean they are plotting against someone.

I hear folks say that OCA News is a rumor mill, that Mark is reporting rumors, etc... I have yet to have that accusation backed up by examples so that we can understand exactly what is been said. It may be that folks have different definitions. I'll put on the table just one example that was widely labeled as rumor mongering: When Mark reported that Metropolitan Jonah was put on a leave of absence, it was labeled a lie, a malicious rumor, etc...To be sure, the Metropolitan himself denied it, forcing the Holy Synod to publish its minutes that showed the whole world that (a) he was indeed put on a leave of absence and (b) Stokoe had been right all along.

Getting back to the letter from Bishop Matthias, did anyone think, as I did, that it was odd that +Matthias said that OCA News "has hampered Pan-Orthodox unity, and it has encouraged those who disrespect the clergy and the Church to express their disdain and sometimes outright hatred for the Church, the hierarchs, the clergy and its faithful"? It seems to me that Mark himself is not guilty of any of that, although some of his posters certainly have crossed the line, speaking of which, I have never seen greater disrespect for hierarchs than that displayed by Fr Fester and also by some of the writers of "OCA Truth", the blog site for fans of Metropolitan Jonah, and "My Antiochian", the web site for the fans of Metropolitan Phillip. Concerning Pan-Orthodox unity, OCA News actually did just that by uniting folks from all jurisdictions against the machinations of Metropolitan Philip. Kidding aside, Mark today told a poster that once the Antiochian Holy Synod had decided, he quit covering the Archdiocese. Now, it is true that Mark reported on indications that the Metropolitan had talked about giving up autocephaly for "maximal autonomy" under Moscow. May be Bishop Matthias was referring to this reporting as hampering unity with Moscow? I don't know.

That was uncalled for. The primary definition for “rogue” implies a dishonest, knavish scoundrel.

I also stopped reading OCANews as it no longer objective but appeared to have an agenda of getting rid of Metropolitan Jonah.Stokoe's whole exposure of the former Bishop of Alaska, Nikolai, bordered on the pornographic.Definitely, Nikolai was in the wrong, but there is a limit that should not be crossed in reporting news.How many souls have been scandalized by Stokoe's revelations? How many souls have crossed the line and sinned through satisfying their own curiosity by avoiding custody of the eyes, ears, and tongue.

That was uncalled for. The primary definition for “rogue” implies a dishonest, knavish scoundrel.

He could have been more respectful in that headline. Yet, it was not a rumor, nor was it untrue. Rogue also means "no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local." It was obvious from the facts of the case that the headline was conveying that sense of the word. Certainly this was not polite or respectful way to label an ordinary bishop without any good reason. The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly. The fact is that, after accepting that decision, the bishop who had agreed to that discipline decided to fight it, to misrepresent it, and act as if he did not have to carry out its terms--in other words he was no longer obedient to the decision of the Holy Synod. And, in order to come to this conclusion, you don't need to read anything beyond the official documents of the Holy Synod and the speeches/sermons of the Metropolitan. The system worked and there is accord once again between the presiding bishop and member bishops of the Holy Synod. But, that extraordinary measure, the subsequent misconduct, the unprecedented publication of the minutes of the Santa Fe Retreat,and the subsequent embarrassment, was not caused by Stokoe's reporting. Yet, folks still are throwing bricks at the messenger. I will close by saying this; even a stopped clock is right twice a day. even if Stokoe was all bad, all the time, you cannot overlook the fact that he was right not twice but a multitude of times. You cannot overlook the fact that, homosexual or not, he had been a servant of the Church for most of his adult life. You should not allow yourself to overlook all the good that he has done just because he has dared to report misdeeds of church officials or because you do not approve of his journalistic style or his life style. I am not closing my eyes to anything; I am saying this as a signer of the Manhattan Declaration.

That was uncalled for. The primary definition for “rogue” implies a dishonest, knavish scoundrel.

He could have been more respectful in that headline. Yet, it was not a rumor, nor was it untrue. Rogue also means "no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local." It was obvious from the facts of the case that the headline was conveying that sense of the word. Certainly this was not polite or respectful way to label an ordinary bishop without any good reason. The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly. The fact is that, after accepting that decision, the bishop who had agreed to that discipline decided to fight it, to misrepresent it, and act as if he did not have to carry out its terms--in other words he was no longer obedient to the decision of the Holy Synod. And, in order to come to this conclusion, you don't need to read anything beyond the official documents of the Holy Synod and the speeches/sermons of the Metropolitan. The system worked and there is accord once again between the presiding bishop and member bishops of the Holy Synod. But, that extraordinary measure, the subsequent misconduct, the unprecedented publication of the minutes of the Santa Fe Retreat,and the subsequent embarrassment, was not caused by Stokoe's reporting. Yet, folks still are throwing bricks at the messenger. I will close by saying this; even a stopped clock is right twice a day. even if Stokoe was all bad, all the time, you cannot overlook the fact that he was right not twice but a multitude of times. You cannot overlook the fact that, homosexual or not, he had been a servant of the Church for most of his adult life. You should not allow yourself to overlook all the good that he has done just because he has dared to report misdeeds of church officials or because you do not approve of his journalistic style or his life style. I am not closing my eyes to anything; I am saying this as a signer of the Manhattan Declaration.

One of the few things my grandmother ever told me (she died when I was 12) was that, "It's not what you say, but how you say it."

One can expound the truth w/o being a jerk about it. Ever since Met. Philip demanded that the OCA "do something" about "Stokee," OCANews appeared nastier to me with each passing post.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

That was uncalled for. The primary definition for “rogue” implies a dishonest, knavish scoundrel.

I also stopped reading OCANews as it no longer objective but appeared to have an agenda of getting rid of Metropolitan Jonah.Stokoe's whole exposure of the former Bishop of Alaska, Nikolai, bordered on the pornographic.Definitely, Nikolai was in the wrong, but there is a limit that should not be crossed in reporting news.How many souls have been scandalized by Stokoe's revelations? How many souls have crossed the line and sinned through satisfying their own curiosity by avoiding custody of the eyes, ears, and tongue.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

What as reported was indeed bordering on pornography. You could use a similarly revolting appellation for the conduct of Mr. Kondratick and the previous two Metropolitans. I would hope that folks were indeed scandalized by these revelations but I would think that their ire would fall on the perpetrators and not on the reporters. Nobody forced anyone to read the reporting and everybody has a quick way to turn the page or click the computer off. I cannot fault anyone for having delicate sensibilities and for those folks, I definitely would recommend they do not read the daily papers, weekly magazines, television or radio news, the Internet, etc... Trust me; they are full of very disturbing information and pictures. We have always had a fallen world but I do not think that we had ever been so exposed to its fallen state. Lord have mercy!

You should not allow yourself to overlook all the good that he has done just because he has dared to report misdeeds of church officials or because you do not approve of his journalistic style or his life style.

No....I have never said I overlook any of his contributions.....I just feel that his website has run it's course and now borders on a vehicle to invite gossip.

That was uncalled for. The primary definition for “rogue” implies a dishonest, knavish scoundrel.

He could have been more respectful in that headline. Yet, it was not a rumor, nor was it untrue. Rogue also means "no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local." It was obvious from the facts of the case that the headline was conveying that sense of the word. Certainly this was not polite or respectful way to label an ordinary bishop without any good reason. The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly. The fact is that, after accepting that decision, the bishop who had agreed to that discipline decided to fight it, to misrepresent it, and act as if he did not have to carry out its terms--in other words he was no longer obedient to the decision of the Holy Synod. And, in order to come to this conclusion, you don't need to read anything beyond the official documents of the Holy Synod and the speeches/sermons of the Metropolitan. The system worked and there is accord once again between the presiding bishop and member bishops of the Holy Synod. But, that extraordinary measure, the subsequent misconduct, the unprecedented publication of the minutes of the Santa Fe Retreat,and the subsequent embarrassment, was not caused by Stokoe's reporting. Yet, folks still are throwing bricks at the messenger. I will close by saying this; even a stopped clock is right twice a day. even if Stokoe was all bad, all the time, you cannot overlook the fact that he was right not twice but a multitude of times. You cannot overlook the fact that, homosexual or not, he had been a servant of the Church for most of his adult life. You should not allow yourself to overlook all the good that he has done just because he has dared to report misdeeds of church officials or because you do not approve of his journalistic style or his life style. I am not closing my eyes to anything; I am saying this as a signer of the Manhattan Declaration.

One of the few things my grandmother ever told me (she died when I was 12) was that, "It's not what you say, but how you say it."

One can expound the truth w/o being a jerk about it. Ever since Met. Philip demanded that the OCA "do something" about "Stokee," OCANews appeared nastier to me with each passing post.

So now we have a factually correct but attitudinally challenged site, a news source that is not unbiased; quelle horreur! I have never met your grandmother and my own died when I was only four, but my grandfather used to say "what you say and how you say it are equally important."

The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly.

The minutes do not reflect your claims. According to the minutes, it was suggested that Metropolitan Jonah take some time off to recover his health. The minutes explicitly call this voluntary on the Metropolitan's part. There is not even a whiff of the idea in the minutes that this was punitive or disciplinary, so I'm forced to assume that you took the idea off Stokoe.

Furthermore, on what grounds do you claim this was a unanimous decision of the Synod? There is no breakdown of their individual votes in the minutes. There were seven voting bishops present at the meeting; four constitutes a simple majority. Thus the will of four is "the Synod".

Quote

The fact is that, after accepting that decision, the bishop who had agreed to that discipline decided to fight it, to misrepresent it, and act as if he did not have to carry out its terms--in other words he was no longer obedient to the decision of the Holy Synod.

How did you come to that conclusion? Because Metropolitan Jonah was hanging out at St. Vladimir's with two of his brother bishops, or meeting the Patriarch of Serbia along with one of his brother bishops? If the Synod disapproved of what Metropolitan Jonah was doing, joining his party was certainly a strange way of showing it. For the rest of his leave, Metropolitan Jonah stayed at his cathedral in Washington, resting, as he promised, from his many labors as Metropolitan. The idea that Metropolitan Jonah went "rogue" was planted in your mind by Stokoe and company.

Furthermore, Schultz is right about the importance of how something is said. Obviously, there was some misunderstanding between Metropolitan Jonah and some other bishops over the exact details of the leave. That does not mean Metropolitan Jonah lied. I am amazed, however, that people who were not at the Synodal meeting would take it upon themselves to accuse him of having done so. If he were truly lying in that video taken at the cathedral, I would have expected to see him display anger and self-justification, not the meek tone of voice, and tears, that were actually there. Stokoe went beyond a lack of tact, and was actively demonizing the Metropolitan at that point.

Quote

You cannot overlook the fact that, homosexual or not, he had been a servant of the Church for most of his adult life. You should not allow yourself to overlook all the good that he has done just because he has dared to report misdeeds of church officials or because you do not approve of his journalistic style or his life style.

Somehow, I don't think "fomenting rebellion against the teaching of the Church" fits the definition of a servant of the Church. But I'm crazy like that.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 05:03:43 PM by Orual »

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly.

You asked for chapter and verse and you will get it. This is from the Minutes of the Santa Fe Meeting that was published after Metropolitan Jonah said he was not put on a leave of absence and did not act as if he was on such a leave.

Source: Orthodox Church in America web site announcement;

"Holy Synod Minutes from Pre-Lenten RetreatSYOSSET, NY [OCA]. Upon instruction of the Holy Synod of Bishops, minutes from the pre-lenten retreat in which they participated February 22-25, 2011 in Santa Fe, NM are now available in PDF format"

Here are the relevant parts (my highlights in bold):

"Wednesday, February 23, 2011SESSION IVThe Holy Synod’s Concern for the Health of His Beatitude, JonahHEARD:The Holy Synod discussed matters affecting the primatial service of His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH. Holy Synod members affirmed their love and obedience to the Metropolitan and reminded him that love and obedience are also reciprocal between the Metropolitan and the Holy Synod. There must be mutual obedience.

Metropolitan JONAH was asked to absent himself from the meeting.Discussion followed.Metropolitan JONAH returned to the meeting.

DECIDED:The Holy Synod took the following actions and reviewed them with His Beatitude:2. The Holy Synod expressed concern for the Metropolitan’s health. Once again they affirmed their love and concern for him and their earnest desire to see him succeed. After further discussion, the Holy Synod determined that a sixty day Leave of Absence for His Beatitude would be beneficial. Metropolitan Jonah accepted to do so.The Synod asked him to request to do so, as it would be better seen that he acknowledged the need for this. Metropolitan JONAH then requested a Leave Of Absence for not less than 60 days during which time he would see a physician and devote himself to his own spiritual and physical health without concern for the burdens of the primatial office. This could include a time of retreat at a monastery. His Grace Bishop Benjamin asked if he was ready to make this decision or if he needed additional time and the Metropolitan said he did not need more time to make the decision.

3. The Holy Synod appointed Archbishop NATHANIEL as Administrator of the OCA for the length of His Beatitude’s leave.

4. The Holy Synod appointed Bishop MELCHISEDEK as interim Chancellor.

5. The Holy Synod relieved His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH from his responsibilities as Locum Tenens of the Diocese of the South and appointed Bishop NIKON Locum Tenens of the Diocese of the South with Bishop MARK continuing as administrator.

6. The Holy Synod relieved His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH from his responsibilities as Locum Tenens of the Diocese of Midwest and appointed Bishop TIKHON as Locum Tenens of the diocese of the Midwest with Archimandrite MATTHIAS continuing as administrator

HEARD:Bishop BENJAMIN conveyed to His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH, the above decisions of the Holy Synod. He noted that these decisions were made out of love for His Beatitude and out of concern for the spiritual and physical health of the Primate.

The members of the Holy Synod emphasized that it was their desire for His Beatitude to sincerely take this time to address issues of his well‐being so that he could most effectively fulfill his responsibilities as Primate of the Church.Metropolitan JONAH thanked the brothers for their concern and acknowledged that a leave of absence would be beneficial and noted that he had not had much time off since his election as Primate.

Bishop TIKHON asked His Beatitude if he needed any time to reflect upon these matters.

Metropolitan JONAH declined and confirmed that he would abide by the counsel of his brothers.

DECIDED:A. The Holy Synod accepted the request of Metropolitan JONAH for a leave of absence for 60 days.

Thursday, February 24, 2011SESSION VFinal Review

HEARD:The Holy Synod reviewed the decisions from the minutes from the previous days.

Bishop TIKHON presented a draft of the Press Release.

Metropolitan JONAH inquired about several upcoming events which he had been scheduled to participate in.The Holy Synod recommended that it would be best for His Beatitude to begin his leave of absence immediately and allow the Administrator, the Interim Chancellor and the members of the Holy Synod to assume the responsibility for those eventsMetropolitan JONAH agreed to this recommendation."

The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly.

You asked for chapter and verse and you will get it. This is from the Minutes of the Santa Fe Meeting that was published after Metropolitan Jonah said he was not put on a leave of absence and did not act as if he was on such a leave.

Source: Orthodox Church in America web site announcement;

"Holy Synod Minutes from Pre-Lenten RetreatSYOSSET, NY [OCA]. Upon instruction of the Holy Synod of Bishops, minutes from the pre-lenten retreat in which they participated February 22-25, 2011 in Santa Fe, NM are now available in PDF format"

Here are the relevant parts (my highlights in bold):

"Wednesday, February 23, 2011SESSION IVThe Holy Synod’s Concern for the Health of His Beatitude, JonahHEARD:The Holy Synod discussed matters affecting the primatial service of His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH. Holy Synod members affirmed their love and obedience to the Metropolitan and reminded him that love and obedience are also reciprocal between the Metropolitan and the Holy Synod. There must be mutual obedience.

Metropolitan JONAH was asked to absent himself from the meeting.Discussion followed.Metropolitan JONAH returned to the meeting.

DECIDED:The Holy Synod took the following actions and reviewed them with His Beatitude:2. The Holy Synod expressed concern for the Metropolitan’s health. Once again they affirmed their love and concern for him and their earnest desire to see him succeed. After further discussion, the Holy Synod determined that a sixty day Leave of Absence for His Beatitude would be beneficial. Metropolitan Jonah accepted to do so.The Synod asked him to request to do so, as it would be better seen that he acknowledged the need for this. Metropolitan JONAH then requested a Leave Of Absence for not less than 60 days during which time he would see a physician and devote himself to his own spiritual and physical health without concern for the burdens of the primatial office. This could include a time of retreat at a monastery. His Grace Bishop Benjamin asked if he was ready to make this decision or if he needed additional time and the Metropolitan said he did not need more time to make the decision.

3. The Holy Synod appointed Archbishop NATHANIEL as Administrator of the OCA for the length of His Beatitude’s leave.

4. The Holy Synod appointed Bishop MELCHISEDEK as interim Chancellor.

5. The Holy Synod relieved His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH from his responsibilities as Locum Tenens of the Diocese of the South and appointed Bishop NIKON Locum Tenens of the Diocese of the South with Bishop MARK continuing as administrator.

6. The Holy Synod relieved His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH from his responsibilities as Locum Tenens of the Diocese of Midwest and appointed Bishop TIKHON as Locum Tenens of the diocese of the Midwest with Archimandrite MATTHIAS continuing as administrator

HEARD:Bishop BENJAMIN conveyed to His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH, the above decisions of the Holy Synod. He noted that these decisions were made out of love for His Beatitude and out of concern for the spiritual and physical health of the Primate.

The members of the Holy Synod emphasized that it was their desire for His Beatitude to sincerely take this time to address issues of his well‐being so that he could most effectively fulfill his responsibilities as Primate of the Church.Metropolitan JONAH thanked the brothers for their concern and acknowledged that a leave of absence would be beneficial and noted that he had not had much time off since his election as Primate.

Bishop TIKHON asked His Beatitude if he needed any time to reflect upon these matters.

Metropolitan JONAH declined and confirmed that he would abide by the counsel of his brothers.

DECIDED:A. The Holy Synod accepted the request of Metropolitan JONAH for a leave of absence for 60 days.

Thursday, February 24, 2011SESSION VFinal Review

HEARD:The Holy Synod reviewed the decisions from the minutes from the previous days.

Bishop TIKHON presented a draft of the Press Release.

Metropolitan JONAH inquired about several upcoming events which he had been scheduled to participate in.The Holy Synod recommended that it would be best for His Beatitude to begin his leave of absence immediately and allow the Administrator, the Interim Chancellor and the members of the Holy Synod to assume the responsibility for those eventsMetropolitan JONAH agreed to this recommendation."

Second Chance, after having read the above excerpt of the minutes from the Santa Fe retreat, I find myself agreeing with Orual and wondering where you got your interpretation of this document and of His Beatitude's subsequent conduct.

The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly.

You asked for chapter and verse and you will get it. This is from the Minutes of the Santa Fe Meeting that was published after Metropolitan Jonah said he was not put on a leave of absence and did not act as if he was on such a leave.

Source: Orthodox Church in America web site announcement;

"Holy Synod Minutes from Pre-Lenten RetreatSYOSSET, NY [OCA]. Upon instruction of the Holy Synod of Bishops, minutes from the pre-lenten retreat in which they participated February 22-25, 2011 in Santa Fe, NM are now available in PDF format"

Here are the relevant parts (my highlights in bold):

"Wednesday, February 23, 2011SESSION IVThe Holy Synod’s Concern for the Health of His Beatitude, JonahHEARD:The Holy Synod discussed matters affecting the primatial service of His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH. Holy Synod members affirmed their love and obedience to the Metropolitan and reminded him that love and obedience are also reciprocal between the Metropolitan and the Holy Synod. There must be mutual obedience.

Metropolitan JONAH was asked to absent himself from the meeting.Discussion followed.Metropolitan JONAH returned to the meeting.

DECIDED:The Holy Synod took the following actions and reviewed them with His Beatitude:2. The Holy Synod expressed concern for the Metropolitan’s health. Once again they affirmed their love and concern for him and their earnest desire to see him succeed. After further discussion, the Holy Synod determined that a sixty day Leave of Absence for His Beatitude would be beneficial. Metropolitan Jonah accepted to do so.The Synod asked him to request to do so, as it would be better seen that he acknowledged the need for this. Metropolitan JONAH then requested a Leave Of Absence for not less than 60 days during which time he would see a physician and devote himself to his own spiritual and physical health without concern for the burdens of the primatial office. This could include a time of retreat at a monastery. His Grace Bishop Benjamin asked if he was ready to make this decision or if he needed additional time and the Metropolitan said he did not need more time to make the decision.

3. The Holy Synod appointed Archbishop NATHANIEL as Administrator of the OCA for the length of His Beatitude’s leave.

4. The Holy Synod appointed Bishop MELCHISEDEK as interim Chancellor.

5. The Holy Synod relieved His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH from his responsibilities as Locum Tenens of the Diocese of the South and appointed Bishop NIKON Locum Tenens of the Diocese of the South with Bishop MARK continuing as administrator.

6. The Holy Synod relieved His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH from his responsibilities as Locum Tenens of the Diocese of Midwest and appointed Bishop TIKHON as Locum Tenens of the diocese of the Midwest with Archimandrite MATTHIAS continuing as administrator

HEARD:Bishop BENJAMIN conveyed to His Beatitude, Metropolitan JONAH, the above decisions of the Holy Synod. He noted that these decisions were made out of love for His Beatitude and out of concern for the spiritual and physical health of the Primate.

The members of the Holy Synod emphasized that it was their desire for His Beatitude to sincerely take this time to address issues of his well‐being so that he could most effectively fulfill his responsibilities as Primate of the Church.Metropolitan JONAH thanked the brothers for their concern and acknowledged that a leave of absence would be beneficial and noted that he had not had much time off since his election as Primate.

Bishop TIKHON asked His Beatitude if he needed any time to reflect upon these matters.

Metropolitan JONAH declined and confirmed that he would abide by the counsel of his brothers.

DECIDED:A. The Holy Synod accepted the request of Metropolitan JONAH for a leave of absence for 60 days.

Thursday, February 24, 2011SESSION VFinal Review

HEARD:The Holy Synod reviewed the decisions from the minutes from the previous days.

Bishop TIKHON presented a draft of the Press Release.

Metropolitan JONAH inquired about several upcoming events which he had been scheduled to participate in.The Holy Synod recommended that it would be best for His Beatitude to begin his leave of absence immediately and allow the Administrator, the Interim Chancellor and the members of the Holy Synod to assume the responsibility for those eventsMetropolitan JONAH agreed to this recommendation."

Second Chance, after having read the above excerpt of the minutes from the Santa Fe retreat, I find myself agreeing with Orual and wondering where you got your interpretation of this document and of His Beatitude's subsequent conduct.

I got my interpretation from my exposure to church affairs from a young age, my studies, and work experience. It is entirely true that the minutes do not expressly say "Metropolitan Jonah, we find you guilty of x, y and z and put you on leave of absence as a punishment." That's not the way it works. Let me ask you how often you have seen the minutes of a Holy Synod or a Board of Directors tell its chairman that he/she really need behave in accordance with a, b, or c. I am sure that most everybody is by now familiar with Apostolic Canon 34, where the metropolitan (head of the local church) is enjoined from doing anything without the consent of his fellow bishops. This is a very important Canon that if invoked would have necessitated a trial, with all the complications that would have ensued. For one thing, nobody wanted to find yet another metropolitan. You also had the problem of having to recruit additional bishops for a court, +Jonah's right to appeal to the EP or MP any decision, the close ties between +Jonah and Moscow, etc..

In any case, when you effect discipline at such a high level and want to give the offender another chance, you do things diplomatically and in a way that saves the face of the offender after the disciplinary period. So it was with +Jonah. He was put on a leave of absence. The real reason was his acting without the consent of his Synod ("There must be mutual obedience"), the fig leaf was concern for his health, the face saving device was +Jonah asking for leave for health reasons. The nature of the leave of absence was also made clear: his duties were given to other bishops, and when he asked if he could still participate in scheduled events, they said no. In all of this, he was asked over and over if he agreed, and in each instance he said yes.

So, what happened after he left the meeting? Did he in fact act in accordance with the decision of the Holy Synod, with which he had freely and fully agreed? No. One can quibble whether he was disciplined. But one cannot deny that he was put on a leave of abscence and that he broke his word. All that is in the record.

The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly.

You asked for chapter and verse and you will get it. This is from the Minutes of the Santa Fe Meeting that was published after Metropolitan Jonah said he was not put on a leave of absence and did not act as if he was on such a leave.

I didn't ask for chapter and verse, but thanks for copying the text and proving me right about the leave being voluntary, inasmuch as it's stated explicitly in the minutes.

Metropolitan Jonah should not have had to spend Lent on Walden Pond in order to "act like he was on leave." He took leave of his wearying schedule and duties as Metropolitan for exactly the duration suggested and agreed upon. Their agreement to have him take a break from some scheduled events does not mean he was forbidden from the events he did participate in.

I don't give a rat's behind about Stokoe's sexuality or whether he sells poisoned milk to school children. My problem with Stokoe has always been his vicious and unscrupulous campaign to undermine Metropolitan Jonah's leadership and ruin his good name.

If that doesn't suffice, I cannot help you anymore, and refuse to engage in this any further.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 08:17:56 PM by Orual »

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly.

You asked for chapter and verse and you will get it. This is from the Minutes of the Santa Fe Meeting that was published after Metropolitan Jonah said he was not put on a leave of absence and did not act as if he was on such a leave.

I didn't ask for chapter and verse, but thanks for copying the text and proving me right about the leave being voluntary, inasmuch as it's stated explicitly in the minutes.

Metropolitan Jonah should not have had to spend Lent on Walden Pond in order to "act like he was on leave." He took leave of his wearying schedule and duties as Metropolitan for exactly the duration suggested and agreed upon. Their agreement to have him take a break from some scheduled events does not mean he was forbidden from the events he did participate in.

I don't give a rat's behind about Stokoe's sexuality or whether he sells poisoned milk to school children. My problem with Stokoe has always been his vicious and unscrupulous campaign to undermine Metropolitan Jonah's leadership and ruin his good name.

If that doesn't suffice, I cannot help you anymore, and refuse to engage in this any further.

I am not going to let this go unanswered. If you read it slowly and carefully (and without preconceptions) you will see that a chain of events occurred:

1. The Synod discussed "matters affecting the primatial service of His Beatitude and then told +Jonah to act in accordance with normal procedures, that is, on the basis of mutual obedience. Strange that such a basic concept had to be reiterated just for the heck of it, no?

2. The synod than asked its presiding officer to leave the room so they can deliberate. Strange that they did so, unless of course they were going to deliberate on what to do about him, no?

3. They brought him back in the room and told him he was being placed on leave of abscence. Strange that some folks consider this to have been voluntary on the part of the object of the Synodal action, no?

4. Then, "The Synod asked him to request to do so, as it would be better seen that he acknowledged the need for this." The reason for the Synod extending this courtesy is important. I stand corrected, they did not do so to give him a fig leaf, but to ensure that the Church at large was assured that the Holy Synod, including +Jonah, had agreed to this course of action.

5. Only then, "Metropolitan JONAH then requested a Leave Of Absence for not less than 60 days during which time he would see a physician and devote himself to his own spiritual and physical health without concern for the burdens of the primatial office. This could include a time of retreat at a monastery."

So much for this being a voluntary action on +Jonah's part. Of course, if one believes that the Metropolitan of the OCA is a super bishop like the Bishop of Rome, it would make perfect sense that the decision of the Holy Synod would have been just a recommendation and the final and true decision on the matter would have been taken by the super-bishop Metropolitan of the OCA.

Here is the important part: whatever happened before, the present circumstances appear that all concerned are operating in much closer cooperation. I don't think that we can continue to think of the Holy Synod and Metropolitan Jonah as two separate entities, as was the 'partisan line' formed by the online commentators. The bishops have definitely started to work together, which is exactly what the Church's Tradition calls for.

You can go back and forth over history, but I think what is more important is that the OCA has a future, unlike so many other institutions in history.

The fact is that the Holy Synod unanimously took a grave decision to discipline its presiding bishop for not acting properly.

You asked for chapter and verse and you will get it. This is from the Minutes of the Santa Fe Meeting that was published after Metropolitan Jonah said he was not put on a leave of absence and did not act as if he was on such a leave.

I didn't ask for chapter and verse, but thanks for copying the text and proving me right about the leave being voluntary, inasmuch as it's stated explicitly in the minutes.

Metropolitan Jonah should not have had to spend Lent on Walden Pond in order to "act like he was on leave." He took leave of his wearying schedule and duties as Metropolitan for exactly the duration suggested and agreed upon. Their agreement to have him take a break from some scheduled events does not mean he was forbidden from the events he did participate in.

I don't give a rat's behind about Stokoe's sexuality or whether he sells poisoned milk to school children. My problem with Stokoe has always been his vicious and unscrupulous campaign to undermine Metropolitan Jonah's leadership and ruin his good name.

If that doesn't suffice, I cannot help you anymore, and refuse to engage in this any further.

I am not going to let this go unanswered. If you read it slowly and carefully (and without preconceptions) you will see that a chain of events occurred:

1. The Synod discussed "matters affecting the primatial service of His Beatitude and then told +Jonah to act in accordance with normal procedures, that is, on the basis of mutual obedience. Strange that such a basic concept had to be reiterated just for the heck of it, no?

2. The synod than asked its presiding officer to leave the room so they can deliberate. Strange that they did so, unless of course they were going to deliberate on what to do about him, no?

3. They brought him back in the room and told him he was being placed on leave of abscence. Strange that some folks consider this to have been voluntary on the part of the object of the Synodal action, no?

4. Then, "The Synod asked him to request to do so, as it would be better seen that he acknowledged the need for this." The reason for the Synod extending this courtesy is important. I stand corrected, they did not do so to give him a fig leaf, but to ensure that the Church at large was assured that the Holy Synod, including +Jonah, had agreed to this course of action.

5. Only then, "Metropolitan JONAH then requested a Leave Of Absence for not less than 60 days during which time he would see a physician and devote himself to his own spiritual and physical health without concern for the burdens of the primatial office. This could include a time of retreat at a monastery."

So much for this being a voluntary action on +Jonah's part. Of course, if one believes that the Metropolitan of the OCA is a super bishop like the Bishop of Rome, it would make perfect sense that the decision of the Holy Synod would have been just a recommendation and the final and true decision on the matter would have been taken by the super-bishop Metropolitan of the OCA.